Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2019' started by Umaga's Witness, Sep 23, 2019.
Thanks, that saved me from defending myself!
World Rugby are definitely on the right path in regards to dangerous tackles. I think referees as much as players are having to work hard to adapt to the new framework. World Rugby are the ones that will be held accountable if they end up with a player not being able to walk again. They want to protect their brand and their assets and so they should. It's in everyone's best interests. It means that they have to make people more accountable for their actions.
Referees are always having to adapt to rule changes. I want to give Poite credit here. He used the tools available. He may not have got the right decisions on the field but he was trying to make the most of what was available to him. We then come to the ENG v USA game. Nic Berry was probably lucky to get an obvious call to make. I still think they learnt from what happened a couple of days ago. Ultimately the judiciary caught up with Samoa, and Australia. Which in turn should become a deterrent to other players. "Hey mate if you go for that hit in the last game of pool play, you may miss out on playing the final."
I don't know how long these refs have served the game, but I imagine most of them have had at least 10 - 15yrs experience at various levels. As any athlete if you've been practising your craft for that long it is hard to change. Samoa is a good example. Remember "the Chiropractor"? These guys grew up trying to emulate their heros. Learned behaviour cannot change overnight. The All Blacks have always been masters of the dark arts. Australians have always been cheats! (I'm not talking rugby here)
The main reason I believe that folk have struggled to adapt, refs and players, is probably complacency. Hopefully with what has been happening this will change. I don't want to use the word outrage. But both fans and media alike have been very outspoken. We are now in an age where our expectation has risen and greater scrutiny is possible. I am glad that World Rugby has called out the referees. I would be happy if they even started clarifying the contentious calls. Was du Toit offside? Shoud Read have been carded? World Rugby are their employer after all. They have spoken out in the past. Remember how the quarter final between Scotland and Australia ended in 2015? We were told the ref made the wrong call. I believe openness like that will improve the level of refereeing. Accountability is a powerful thing.
At the heart of it though is the fact that we all want a fair contest. It may not always happen but if those at the top, the players and referees show themselves to be open and honest then I think we'll get something close to it. The only sign of defensiveness should be shown on the paddock.
One last note.. If a player really wants to put the hurt on someone, a solid hit up into the rib cage will always do the job.
I think you have a misconception about the fans though. Remember that Journalists, Administrators and even citing commissioners are all in some shape or form a fan of rugby. While many of us with no official affiliation to a team or governing body use social media, to either point out issues of frustration/contention/double standards. Whether or not it's a big issue, that depends on how it's received by others as well as the media and the administrators.
I think in this day and age, the voice of the public is something that shouldn't be underestimated, because the weight it can potentially carry.
And you are wrong about attendance. It might not affect this World Cup, but it will definitely have an effect on upcoming tours and events after the WC. Especially if there is some sort of indication that some team got shafted.
Nothing, Zip, Nada.
But what is interesting is that the journo's kept on saying that the Citing Commissioner only has 24 hours after the match to make a decision on an incident, which is in fact incorrect, as the Citing Commissioner has 36 hours according to the WR document I shared earlier in the thread. And before that 36 hours were up, the videos of the incidents were already circulated on social media.
They probably thought it was yellow and not red then? There isn’t a strike with force to the head as some have accused, he grabs him over the shoulder by the collar. Yes it’s illegal, yes it takes him out of the play. It isn’t likely to cause any injury, the fact PSDT gets straight back up circumstantially supports that. I think it’s a YC, but not RC. I also accept I am bias and that others, equally bias, will see it as a RC. That’s life.
Who wants to play lawyer? I re-watched the England vs USA this morning as I am a man of leisure. Which means I have far too much time on my hands............. I'm not sure how well this is going to work but bear with me. There was an excellent super slow motion of the tackle Piers Francis made. They say everything looks worse in slow motion. In this case I don't agree....The case for the defence if I may?
The camera appears to be static that allows reference points to be established. First things first it's not a shoulder charge as you can clearly see the arms are wrapped successfully. We're then in to territory of the framework. There is some argument to be made as to whether point 2 or 3 of the red card sanction applies. However in terms of outcome it's irrelevant. Though interestingly I suspect that Francis actually makes contact with his right arm / shoulder first.
However, we're then looking at mitigation.
Now given that there's a very small elapsed time between image 1 and image 42 is there any evidence of the ball carrier dropping height? Absolutely there is and we've got reference points that prove it. If you look at image 1 (apologies for the poor image it was a fade but it's important for context). Look at the ball carriers head in comparison to the railings / hoarding behind. I'd offer as further mitigation the fact that you can actually see Francis looking at the ball.
At image 1 the horizontal railing in the background is level with the American player's ear and the ball tip is almost level with the top of the green advertising hoarding. First contact is made somewhere around image 23 by which time the entirety of the Ball carrier's head is now below the level of the horizontal railing. If we say image 28 is the one they'll use to hang Francis on (clear shoulder to head). Then I'd like to compare the level at which Francis makes contact. His shoulder is pretty much in line with the lower edge of the advertising hoarding. If we then return to image 1 and compare if the ball carrier had not changed height then Francis would have contacted the ball.
Honestly my view is that this is a world away from the Samoan tackles which had no attempt to wrap and 0 control of body position. I believe there's a strong case for a yellow card but that's the limit of the offence Francis committed.
On edit - Forum software limits the size of files I can upload. However if anyone is really interested the best replay occurs at 62:53 on the ITV coverage. Marler gives a cheeky wink before the tackle is shown.
For those interested (and I realise not all are... and I recognise the jeopardy in frame by frame stuff). Here's the Goneva one that I mentioned up-thread. For those that can access ITV player it's available here in full
1:50:35 of the broadcast or 65:29 of the game clock. You can see it better in the video than the stills.
I really would be interested in other people's thoughts on this one. Most incidents (Read the clear exception) are kind of legitimate actions that have been incorrectly executed (Mr Quill does not have that excuse). The Samoan ones horribly so. I'd argue Hodge less and Piers Francis is marginal (as post above).
However this one? Uruguay 14 joins the ruck legitimately. Goneva wrestles him out, flips him onto his back, withdraws his arm and then smashes his elbow directly into the players face. It's a proper cheap shot and surely the kind of thing that World Rugby wish to eliminate? The ref is right there and looking straight at the incident. Is smashing people in the face in rucks acceptable?
In real time, I agree with you and wouldn't blame referees for going to the TMO more often over anything that they're unsure of, although no doubt there would be plenty of complaints. Once time is off and the TMO has been consulted, I have no sympathy. If the best referees within the game aren't capable of memorising a flowhart and following it, World Rugby need to be working on attrating people of greater quality to refereeing. The same goes if the magnitude of the situation is impairing referees' decision making process causing them to bottle big decisions or to be unduely harsh because they're concious of not wanting to bottle big decisions. My suspicion is that in the Samoa game, the pressure of the situation cause Poite to subliminally look extra hard for mitigation or to apply to much significance to what mitigation there was, leading to him bottling two big decisions.
seems the ref is looking more to the left.
I can understand he didn't see atm more difficult to miss by the tmo. but discipline comitty can't aND should not miss this.
here's where wr looses credibility.
The flowchart is far from plain and unambiguous though.
Yeah... because all people with names starting with z are the same....
This is difficult one as I've also liked a contradictory post. That being the Alpha Bro's one below yours. I've noticed a tendency within rugby circles for people in authority to state definitively that things are unambiguous when in fact there's a massive degree of wiggle room. Here's the flow chart in question. The problem is it's not like cricket where in the main your dealing with facts e.g. "is it pitching in-line? Is it hitting the stumps? "Is it a no ball" Here's the communication.
For the most prevalent issue i.e. the tackle you hit this "Degree of Danger". Well there's guidance but it's not definitive. There's then the subjective matter of whether to apply mitigation. If you look at the factors to consider they are again a bit woolly "and / or time before contact" how much? 5 milliseconds? 10 minutes? Then you move on to "must be clear and obvious............." This is where I believe Poite and Graham Hughes got it entirely wrong in the Samoa vs Russia game and I agree they basically folded under pressure. Pretty much all of the factors against mitigation were present but also most of the video signs indicating a higher degree of danger were present too. However as soon as mitigation is allowed due to it's positioning in the flow chart and without weighting i.e. danger vs mitigation the most likely outcome is reduction in sanction. IMO the mitigation elements need strengthening along the lines of "If the attempt to tackle clearly endangers the head / neck of the ball carrier then only exceptional mitigation should be considered." Then I'd have to define "exceptional" which whilst difficult isn't impossible. Something along the lines of "The actions of the ball carrier or another player influence the attempted tackle in a way that's not reasonably (yes I know define that!) expected. For example a player falling or being tackled into another attempted tackle......."
Actually writing that makes me realise it's pretty much a hiding to nothing! That said I think refs could do better with what they have. I'd even favour a kind of DRS system that flashed the flow chart up on the big screen whilst the ref was deciding.....
Fair play, I thought that it was, but must confess that I can't recall it clearly - one of the many reasons that I'm not an international referee! In which case, World Rugby must shoulder at least some of the blame. It would be interesting to know how they test these kinds of things. I would be easy enough to supply all the WC referees with clips of incidents and ask them what the sanction should be (and why) for each of them. If the answers aren't consistent across the board, it would be obvious that the guideance isn't clear enough.
I'd be quicker to place the blame on world rugby definitely. My view is that they've made a rushed attempt to show they're enforcing safety and it's exposed their bad management considering no refs are on the same page. It wouldn't surprise me if the French refs weren't briefed in French at all considering they've had the most difficulty with it.
You've caught me out!
I think I have said before. I appreciate the effort you have gone into to follow the rule book and analyse play by play. To be honest I have not read this post. There comes a time when something can be over analysied.
My job requires me to follow a set of rules, legislation etc. I will not be able to analyse that in every situation I face. I understand when video footage is reviewed we can see exactly what should have, could have happened. In the moment you still have to make the calls as they happen.
That will depend on the officer. Each situation will be dealt with differently. That doesn't mean any of us were wrong. The framework for decision making is set out for us. As long as each of us can justify our decision based on our interpretation of that framework then we have made the right decision.
It is no different to refereeing. You can have your interpretation and I can have mine. It doesn't mean either of us are wrong.
I'm not racist I just don't like anyone else.
British Irish Lions
Good to see you being consistent then.
It's none of my business what people choose to focus on, but if you let outstanding spectacles like Japan vs Ireland and Wales vs Wallabies be overshadowed by refereeing calls you dont agree with this then you are missing out.
I saw nothing in either match that was remotely in the same league (or universe) as Joubert single handedly eliminating Scotland from a QF or Warburton's infamous red card that destroyed Welsh hopes. Those are the sort of calls that merit screeds of discussion.
My take on Gardener (who I dont particularly rate) is that he favours the attacking side, like many other SH refs. Ireland got several early penalties in the Japanese 22 in the first quarter when Ireland had possession and ascendancy. Ireland didn't have the possession and ascendancy for the other three quarters and even at the end weren't putting the Japanese defence massively under pressure by breaking the gain line like they did in the first quarter. Hence less penalties.
I would agree that introducing new rules or points of emphasis directly into an RWC isn't advisable though, given the complexity and variables involved in overall enforcement.
I think the problem is that the logic is if there are enough cards and citings then players will automatically start improving their tackling to avoid getting penalised which makes sense. However it has to be rigorously imposed and as Bruce said, the world cup is not the place to do it, because it overshadows the spectacle and if too many players get banned then it furthers ruins the spectacle. Really WR needed to implement it and enforce it at least a year or 2 before so players and teams had time to adapt.
Kerevi getting penalised for running into someone is about as ridiculous as a decision as I’ve ever seen (I’m a NZer so I don’t go out of my way to sympathise with aussies either).
How was that even considered a penalty? I have no idea what the F the kiwi TMO was even thinking. Madness
Separate names with a comma.